Is This True? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

usersatch -> Is This True? (3/31/2010 1:03:41 AM)

I was watching the "American Experience" on PBS last night about Okinawa and the surrender of Japan. The show stated that the entire B-29 program (from development to final production) cost more than the Manhattan Project. Is this true?

I always thought that the MP was THE most expensive wartime project ever (adjusting for inflation, etc.).



Chickenboy -> RE: Is This True? (3/31/2010 1:18:28 AM)

I thought it was too-I heard the same stats on the same show a couple weeks ago. Dunno what the facts are-I had clearly underestimated the expense of the B-29 program though!



ckk -> RE: Is This True? (3/31/2010 1:26:50 AM)

Government accounting- What answer do you want?[8|]



smallie1 -> RE: Is This True? (3/31/2010 2:04:27 AM)

Saw that last night also. Even though I was aware, how striking was the comparison of the B29 assembly line vs the Japanese factories crafting airline parts by hand?



wwengr -> RE: Is This True? (3/31/2010 2:18:12 AM)

Manhattan Project Costs = $1,889,604,000 (Richard G. Hewlett and Oscar E. Anderson, Jr., The New World: A History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, Volume 1, 1939/1946 (Oak Ridge, Tennessee: U.S. AEC Technical Information Center, 1972), pp. 723-724.)

B-29 Program Costs = $2,537,576,360 (Knaack, Marcelle Size. Post-World War II bombers, 1945–1973. Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History, 1988.)



usersatch -> RE: Is This True? (3/31/2010 4:37:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wwengr

Manhattan Project Costs = $1,889,604,000 (Richard G. Hewlett and Oscar E. Anderson, Jr., The New World: A History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, Volume 1, 1939/1946 (Oak Ridge, Tennessee: U.S. AEC Technical Information Center, 1972), pp. 723-724.)

B-29 Program Costs = $2,537,576,360 (Knaack, Marcelle Size. Post-World War II bombers, 1945–1973. Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History, 1988.)

Holy smokes, Batman!!! Thanks for the references.



CarnageINC -> RE: Is This True? (3/31/2010 5:34:18 AM)

BLAH!  That can't be true just to develop the bomber.  It is the cost of all 3970 B-29's, each costed $639,188...which multiplied happens to be the exact amount of the figures posted above.



CarnageINC -> RE: Is This True? (3/31/2010 5:36:23 AM)

Now that I read the whole posting....I stand corrected, I misread usersatch worded question.....WOW!  Thats alot of WW2 era dough!



witpqs -> RE: Is This True? (3/31/2010 8:17:53 AM)

Of course the B-29 was the only aircraft capable of delivering the A-bomb for some time. So, you can add them together to get the cost of having and being able to use an A-bomb!



d0mbo -> RE: Is This True? (3/31/2010 11:13:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ckk

Government accounting- What answer do you want?[8|]


This!

And I make a living of governmental accounting myself ;)



chesmart -> RE: Is This True? (3/31/2010 11:23:11 AM)

They included the bases and the factorys in those estimates for the B-29 while they did not include the reactor in the Manhattan bomb estimates.



zace -> RE: Is This True? (3/31/2010 12:06:15 PM)

quote:

They included the bases and the factorys in those estimates for the B-29 while they did not include the reactor in the Manhattan bomb estimates.


Technically the Manhattan project didn't need the reactor....

There were 2 totally different bombs created.  The reason for this was that the production rate for one of the fuels was too slow for continued operation and the other was developed.  They both do not require a reactor....  Not going to go too far into this but there are some nuclear weapons that are not that hard to build.  It is however very hard to keep the critical mass of these fuels close enough long enough to get the desired result.

Interesting note.  The way they verified the calculations on critical mass were quite simple.  They dropped one block past the other and saw how much the falling piece was deflected by the reaction as it started....  Amazing what we were willing to do in the past.  I would think that today OSHA would freak at what actually went on in the Manhattan project.



steamboateng -> RE: Is This True? (3/31/2010 12:10:40 PM)

The Russians got it in 1945, right down to rivet detail and overheating engies. Didn't cost them hardly a dime in R&D!



chesmart -> RE: Is This True? (3/31/2010 12:22:21 PM)

Interesting Zace nice to know these small details



usersatch -> RE: Is This True? (3/31/2010 12:23:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Of course the B-29 was the only aircraft capable of delivering the A-bomb for some time. So, you can add them together to get the cost of having and being able to use an A-bomb!


Good point. I am wondering if some "sources" use the combined numbers when referring to the most expensive war project ever.



chesmart -> RE: Is This True? (3/31/2010 12:25:38 PM)

They included all the bases(worldwide) they had to extend to accomodate the B-29 and the New factories Boeing built to make the B-29. 



zace -> RE: Is This True? (3/31/2010 12:35:16 PM)

quote:

Interesting Zace nice to know these small details


Nuclear weapons arn't as hard as people make them out to be......  Why do you think a country that can't make a decent car can make one?

To be honest it is much harder to make a quality complicated item like a car or airplane than atomic weapons.  Especially if you don't have to have it deliverable......



RevRick -> RE: Is This True? (3/31/2010 12:46:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: zace

quote:

Interesting Zace nice to know these small details


Nuclear weapons arn't as hard as people make them out to be......  Why do you think a country that can't make a decent car can make one?

To be honest it is much harder to make a quality complicated item like a car or airplane than atomic weapons.  Especially if you don't have to have it deliverable......



What a comforting thought that is!!![sm=nono.gif]

Lord, help us!



janh -> RE: Is This True? (3/31/2010 4:10:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: zace
Nuclear weapons arn't as hard as people make them out to be......  Why do you think a country that can't make a decent car can make one?


Now, there is a bit more to a sophisticated weapon like this than you think, clearly more knowledge and engineering than required for an average plane or ship. But the required knowledge is a accessible in text books and published scientific journals, it only requires you to have some solid background in physics that you'd get as a Diploma student in Germany, or a PhD level in the US. Major in radio-physics and nuclear energy wouldn't be best. One of the major challenges in developing such a bomb is the acquisition of enough raw material, though. But even that is basically available to any nation, but a matter of cost.
That is why I believe there is no way to stop nuclear proliferation other than to apply the same logic and law to everyone: Every nation should have the right to have one, or none. Just fairness and freedom. But if none had one, then the driving force to waste billions of $$ into such technology would be much much smaller across the world. If you just fight the spreading, you fight the symptoms, but not the root cause. That has never worked very well.


But very interesting original question! I wouldn't see the B-29 as requirement for the nuclear bomb deployment (maybe for the safe return of the crews, though, but possibly a Lancaster could have done the same as easily).




pompack -> RE: Is This True? (3/31/2010 4:19:50 PM)

The basic science and associated engineering to make a fission bomb that will go boom are not that difficult and certainly are not hard to find. Now the science and especially the engineering to make a bomb with minimum material and maximum output is a different thing entirely and even then it may not work thus the need for continued testing (underground after the atmospheric test ban).



sfbaytf -> RE: Is This True? (3/31/2010 4:29:28 PM)

Now that you mention it my uncle was a bombardier in a B-29 squadron. Dad once mentioned something about my uncle being involved in radar directed aiming? Other than that I don't know any other details. My uncle loved to party and could drink like no tomorrow. Drove like a maniac too - spent a few weekends in jail for speeding. Quite a character.

Today the entire cost of the B-29 program will get you 1 B-2 bomber...

I've finally got my B-29's depolyed in the Pacific. the ones in China have mainly focused on mining ports with an occasional raid on ports and airbases. The squadrons in the Pacific have launched a night firebombing raid on Kobe from 5000 feet. Toyko is tonights target.

I tried launching a low level night raid on an airfield. A few Japanese planes got hit on the ground, but the overall results was minimal. I wanted to try this out to see if I could supress an airfield at night to minimize losses.

I'm still trying to figure out if daylight bombing is going to be productive at reasonable costs. Also need to figure out what the targeting priority should be. I see from recon that the Homeislands is packed with fighters. Quality of the enemy pilots is unknown.





chesmart -> RE: Is This True? (3/31/2010 4:29:58 PM)

Ask the North Koreans what happened on there first try 



minnowguy -> RE: Is This True? (4/1/2010 12:54:43 AM)

Re atomic bomb complexity ....

If you find the Manhattan Project interesting, I HIGHLY recommend _The Making of the Atomic Bomb_ by Richard Rhodes.  Great stuff and very readable.

The uranium bomb used on Hiroshima was fairly straightforward engineering.  Los Alamos was so confident it would work that they didn't even bother with a test.  The problem was coming up with enough U-235.

The plutonium bomb used on Nagasaki was a different story.  Plenty of Plutonium could be created in breeder reactors, although there was some very ugly chemistry required to extract it.  OTOH, it required explosive implosion to generate an explosive critical mass and this required some very delicate design work and computational fluid dynamics that were right at the edge of the possible in the 1940s.  They weren't at all certain it would work -- hence the Trinity test.





rjopel -> RE: Is This True? (4/1/2010 1:05:36 AM)

Didn't some grad student back a couple decades ago design a A-bomb as his thesis. Managed to get everything needed from comercial suppliers except the fuel.

His paper got classified by the Feds.

I recall seeing it in Reader's Digest.



usersatch -> RE: Is This True? (4/1/2010 2:48:42 PM)

I got my undergrad degree in physics, and yes, designing a 1945 era device is very easy. Plenty of places on the internet to figure it out. Hell, you don't even need the internet to make the Little Boy design. The key is the pesky U235 or PU239 fuel (and the high explosives to initiate it). Like most things, the richer it is, the better it runs. In this case, the neutron chain reaction. That is where the vast amount of nuclear weapons money was spent--on enrichment. U235 requires thousands and thousands of centrifuges and giant gaseous diffusion plants to enrich it. PU239, while easier to produce, is unstable and extremely toxic to handle.

North Korea's device was extremely crude, most likely due to poor enrichment technology. I read today that an Iranian physicist defected. It will be interesting to see how far along they have gotten.

Most modern US weapons are fission-fusion or fission-fusion-fission devices, tamped with tritium, beryllium, etc. which requires painstaking testing with high explosives to initiate the proper sequence. Sandia Labs studys this, mostly with super-computers. While it is true that with the new computers, they can simulate the entire reaction, at some point they need to go out and test it in the field.

The Rhodes book IS excellent. So is the video series "Trinity and Beyond", which I think can be found on youtube. AND it is narrated by Denny Crane!



Shark7 -> RE: Is This True? (4/1/2010 3:31:55 PM)

When you take into consideration that this is the same government that is notorious for paying far greater than retail price...$600 for a $20 toilet seat for example.



Misconduct -> RE: Is This True? (4/1/2010 3:36:45 PM)

Why doesn't one of the scientist create a bomb that divides by zero? we all know that's bad:)



usersatch -> RE: Is This True? (4/1/2010 3:40:33 PM)

Or take the square root of negative one?



Misconduct -> RE: Is This True? (4/1/2010 3:53:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: usersatch

Or take the square root of negative one?


One of my close friends I went to college with graduated as a nuclear scientist after 12 years I believe or 14 not sure how long but it was forever. I was actually studying Radio broadcasting at the time and was joking around with him about how to create an Atom bomb, he came back 2 days later with the entire diagram how to build and create it. Surprised the FBI didn't show up to inquire about it because he knows his stuff pretty darn good.

Oh and if anyone reads florida news, he also is the genius that sued his school loans and won in court, so he only owes half of his student loan which is more then I will make in 10 years.



Dili -> RE: Is This True? (4/1/2010 4:24:27 PM)

"not the root cause"

One of root causes is imbalance between countries, there is no way that Russia can be convinced to abandon the only thing they have to stop China.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.234375